Lib, did you really vote for David Duke?a guy who voted for David Duke.
Grab them by the PUSSY
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
I believe fasciism can be improved with an inclined board.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
I never voted until after I returned home from the service. I never saw the inside of a voting booth until I voted for Clinton the first time. I didn’t make that mistake again.Lord Jim wrote:Lib, did you really vote for David Duke?a guy who voted for David Duke.
Thanks Jim for making me think of this son of a bitch.
But as long as he lives there is a chance for colon cancer. That would be the only real justice. Now I will try and forget about him and hopefully redeem my soul: Edwards' record of longevity[edit]
Edwards has the sixth longest gubernatorial tenure in post-Constitutional U.S. history at 5,784 days.[88] Few governors have served four four-year terms. Edwards followed George Wallace of Alabama, Jim Hunt of North Carolina, Bill Janklow of South Dakota, Terry Branstad of Iowa and Jim Rhodes of Ohio as 16-year governors. However, Branstad was elected to a fifth nonconsecutive term as governor of Iowa in 2010, placing him second to George Clinton of New York (21 years) as the longest-serving governor in U.S. history, and won a sixth term as governor in 2014.[89]
Veteran journalist Iris Kelso once described Edwards as clearly "the most interesting" of the six governors that she had covered while working for three newspapers and WDSU, the NBC television affiliate in New Orleans. Kelso declared Edwards more colorful than Earl Long, whom she covered for less than a year in the office.[90]
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
https://www.google.com/#q=oil+frackingCrackpot wrote:They don't frack for oil
Drilling companies suggest trillions of cubic feet of shale gas may be recoverable from underneath parts of the UK through a process known as "fracking". Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique designed to recover gas and oil from shale rock.Oct 29, 2015
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
I thought this had the smell of political targeting; hasn't Oduma done that kind of stuff before?
Federal prosecutors will not attempt to retry former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, on corruption charges, ending a years-long saga that rocked the commonwealth’s political class and cut short the rise of a Republican Party star.
The conclusion came unceremoniously, as prosecutors filed one-paragraph documents telling a federal appeals court they would move to dismiss the indictments. It means that the McDonnells — who have always maintained they did nothing illegal — will avoid criminal convictions and prison time.
But the images produced at their trial — the troubled marriage, the lavish vacations, a Ferrari ride, the Rolex watch — can hardly be undone. And the case left in its wake a new legal definition of what constitutes public corruption, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling tossing the former governor’s convictions.
In a statement, Robert McDonnell, 62, said the “final day of vindication has arrived.”
“I have become grateful for this experience of suffering, having used it to examine deeply all aspects of my life, and my role in the circumstances that led to this painful time for my beloved family and Commonwealth,” he said.
Corruption charges dropped for former Va. governor McDonnell
Former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell won big on Sept. 8 when the corruption charges he had been fighting for four years were dropped. Here's what you need to know. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
[U.S. attorney’s office recommends putting Robert McDonnell on trial again]
His attorneys said in a statement: “We have said from the very first day that Bob McDonnell is an innocent man. After a long ordeal traversing the entire legal system, that truth has finally prevailed. We are thrilled Governor McDonnell can finally move on from the nightmare of the last three years and begin rebuilding his life.”
William A. Burck, an attorney for Maureen McDonnell, said: “We thank the Department of Justice for the care with which they reviewed the case. We are thrilled and thankful that Maureen can now move on with her life.”
The U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia had pushed to move forward and retry the McDonnells even after the Supreme Court ruling that would have made their case substantially more difficult. But the decision ultimately rested with Justice Department higher-ups, who apparently rejected arguments from the prosecutors.
The Justice Department said in a statement, “After carefully considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision and the principles of federal prosecution, we have made the decision not to pursue the case further.” Justice officials declined to discuss their reasoning.
McDonnell and his wife were convicted in 2014 of public corruption for taking more than $175,000 in loans and gifts — the Rolex watch, vacations, partial payments for a daughter’s wedding reception among them — in exchange for helping Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. advance a dietary supplement his company had developed.
For Williams’s generosity, prosecutors alleged, the McDonnells arranged to connect him with state officials, let him throw a luncheon at the governor’s mansion to help launch the product and allowed him to shape the a guest list at a mansion reception meant for health-care leaders.
Scenes from the dramatic McDonnell trial
View Photos
Prosecutors drop the case against former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell and his wife after the Supreme Court overturned his public corruption conviction on June 27, 2016.
The trial was a weeks-long affair that saw the McDonnells’ extravagant lifestyle — paid for by Williams — put on display. It also served to air unflattering details of the couple’s personal life when defense attorneys asserted that their marriage was broken and thus they could not have worked together to solicit Williams’s largesse.
Robert McDonnell was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison and his wife to a year and a day. But they spent no actual time in prison as their appeals moved through the court system. Then the Supreme Court in June threw out Robert McDonnell’s conviction, ruling that jurors were wrongly instructed on the meaning of an “official act” — the thing he was said to have done for Williams — and therefore deserved at least a retrial.
The court’s ruling set a higher bar for prosecuting public corruption and said explicitly that setting up meetings or arranging events for benefactors could not by themselves serve as a public official’s end of a corrupt bargain. In light of the new standard, prosecutors were forced to consider whether they could win the case in a retrial.
Robert McDonnell, who had vigorously asserted his innocence, said in his statement that he appreciated the Justice Department “applying the correct rule of law articulated by the Supreme Court” and “for doing justice for me, my family, my friends, my Commonwealth and its servants, and for all those involved in the democratic process.” But he added that his “wrongful convictions were based on a false narrative and incorrect law.”
Federal prosecutors will not attempt to retry former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, on corruption charges, ending a years-long saga that rocked the commonwealth’s political class and cut short the rise of a Republican Party star.
The conclusion came unceremoniously, as prosecutors filed one-paragraph documents telling a federal appeals court they would move to dismiss the indictments. It means that the McDonnells — who have always maintained they did nothing illegal — will avoid criminal convictions and prison time.
But the images produced at their trial — the troubled marriage, the lavish vacations, a Ferrari ride, the Rolex watch — can hardly be undone. And the case left in its wake a new legal definition of what constitutes public corruption, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling tossing the former governor’s convictions.
In a statement, Robert McDonnell, 62, said the “final day of vindication has arrived.”
“I have become grateful for this experience of suffering, having used it to examine deeply all aspects of my life, and my role in the circumstances that led to this painful time for my beloved family and Commonwealth,” he said.
Corruption charges dropped for former Va. governor McDonnell
Former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell won big on Sept. 8 when the corruption charges he had been fighting for four years were dropped. Here's what you need to know. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
[U.S. attorney’s office recommends putting Robert McDonnell on trial again]
His attorneys said in a statement: “We have said from the very first day that Bob McDonnell is an innocent man. After a long ordeal traversing the entire legal system, that truth has finally prevailed. We are thrilled Governor McDonnell can finally move on from the nightmare of the last three years and begin rebuilding his life.”
William A. Burck, an attorney for Maureen McDonnell, said: “We thank the Department of Justice for the care with which they reviewed the case. We are thrilled and thankful that Maureen can now move on with her life.”
The U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia had pushed to move forward and retry the McDonnells even after the Supreme Court ruling that would have made their case substantially more difficult. But the decision ultimately rested with Justice Department higher-ups, who apparently rejected arguments from the prosecutors.
The Justice Department said in a statement, “After carefully considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision and the principles of federal prosecution, we have made the decision not to pursue the case further.” Justice officials declined to discuss their reasoning.
McDonnell and his wife were convicted in 2014 of public corruption for taking more than $175,000 in loans and gifts — the Rolex watch, vacations, partial payments for a daughter’s wedding reception among them — in exchange for helping Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. advance a dietary supplement his company had developed.
For Williams’s generosity, prosecutors alleged, the McDonnells arranged to connect him with state officials, let him throw a luncheon at the governor’s mansion to help launch the product and allowed him to shape the a guest list at a mansion reception meant for health-care leaders.
Scenes from the dramatic McDonnell trial
View Photos
Prosecutors drop the case against former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell and his wife after the Supreme Court overturned his public corruption conviction on June 27, 2016.
The trial was a weeks-long affair that saw the McDonnells’ extravagant lifestyle — paid for by Williams — put on display. It also served to air unflattering details of the couple’s personal life when defense attorneys asserted that their marriage was broken and thus they could not have worked together to solicit Williams’s largesse.
Robert McDonnell was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison and his wife to a year and a day. But they spent no actual time in prison as their appeals moved through the court system. Then the Supreme Court in June threw out Robert McDonnell’s conviction, ruling that jurors were wrongly instructed on the meaning of an “official act” — the thing he was said to have done for Williams — and therefore deserved at least a retrial.
The court’s ruling set a higher bar for prosecuting public corruption and said explicitly that setting up meetings or arranging events for benefactors could not by themselves serve as a public official’s end of a corrupt bargain. In light of the new standard, prosecutors were forced to consider whether they could win the case in a retrial.
Robert McDonnell, who had vigorously asserted his innocence, said in his statement that he appreciated the Justice Department “applying the correct rule of law articulated by the Supreme Court” and “for doing justice for me, my family, my friends, my Commonwealth and its servants, and for all those involved in the democratic process.” But he added that his “wrongful convictions were based on a false narrative and incorrect law.”
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
error
Last edited by liberty on Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
Joe Guy wrote:Under Hillary the Supreme Court is going to declare the constitution unconstitutional?The other thing she is likely to do is pack the SC with fascist that will declare the second amendment unconstitutional regardless of what it says.
Evidently I have much more faith in the ability liberal fascist to create law than you do. What would be your attitude if the fascist on the SC declared the second amendment defunct. A fascist justice would say the constitution says I say it says.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
If he were being targeted, there wouldn't have been two prominent Democrats, Robert Menendez and Sheldon Silver, investigated and charged (Silver was convicted) under the same statute. McDonnell's conviction was upheld by a unanimous panel of the 4th Circuit with a ruling so grounded in precedent that it was not expected to be reviewed by SCOTUS. But they surprised almost everyone by hearing it, and overturning it unanimously. And they did it by engaging in what you disdainfully call "creating law", something that judges must do all the time, but which people like you only notice when they don't like the ruling. The Court created a new legal standard for conviction, and the Justice Department almost immediately decided it would not seek a retrial. If they were really "targeting" McDonnell, they could have made his life hell for another year or more waiting for the case to be heard, decided, appealed and appealed again.
Even McDonnell's lawyer said that the Justice Department filed the initial charges "in good faith" and in accordance with their understanding of the law at that time. But of course you, the expert in all things, label it political targeting without a shred of evidence and hey, that must be the truth.
You make one outrageously ridiculous allegation after another and no longer even bother to provide any justification for the whoppers you come up with.
Oh yeah, your "fascist judge" doesn't exist.
Even if he/she did exist, there would need to be at least four more like him/her to issue the preposterous ruling you put forward.
Even if a like-minded majority could be found on the Court, none of them would contemplate a ruling purporting to delete or render inoperative any part of the Constitution. Any judges attempting that would be impeached by a united Congress. And no judge has ever attempted anything remotely similar, but that didn't matter to you because you have resigned yourself to the role of bomb thrower and have absolutely no regard for the truth of what you write.
Even McDonnell's lawyer said that the Justice Department filed the initial charges "in good faith" and in accordance with their understanding of the law at that time. But of course you, the expert in all things, label it political targeting without a shred of evidence and hey, that must be the truth.
You make one outrageously ridiculous allegation after another and no longer even bother to provide any justification for the whoppers you come up with.
Oh yeah, your "fascist judge" doesn't exist.
Even if he/she did exist, there would need to be at least four more like him/her to issue the preposterous ruling you put forward.
Even if a like-minded majority could be found on the Court, none of them would contemplate a ruling purporting to delete or render inoperative any part of the Constitution. Any judges attempting that would be impeached by a united Congress. And no judge has ever attempted anything remotely similar, but that didn't matter to you because you have resigned yourself to the role of bomb thrower and have absolutely no regard for the truth of what you write.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
I was quoting (paraphrasing) Tony Montana.Hmmmm..... so Oldr & Big RR say....
Money + Power = Get Women
I want to read Guin's reaction...
But anyway, what BigRR said. Not excusing anything Trump did, but there are plenty of women who are attracted to the rich/famous, or just out for some money/power themselves, that they sell out to the rich/famous....
And there are plenty of men who will take advantage of them.
i.e. BC and ML.
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
She should have kept her mouth shut after all her daughter was just a worthless bitch anyway, right. You don’t need a gun in Mexico; just keep your mouth shut and the police will protect you like they did for this woman, right.Sue U wrote:This "Mexico" place sounds terrible! I must tell my friends and family to stop going there and having a good time like normal people on business and vacations!liberty wrote:Then we can be like Mexico where the people live in constant fear of the drug gangs. Compared to what is at stake in this election sexism or even the death of a few individuals is not a big deal. Unless you think being like Mexico is not a big deal.
There is video of this justified killing somewhere if someone want to find it and post it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-12023345
Mexico murder protest mother Escobedo killed
People stand near wooden crosses in a field near Ciudad Juarez where the bodies of eight murdered women were found in November 2010
Image caption
Hundreds of young women have been murdered with impunity in Ciudad Juarez
A Mexican woman who was campaigning for justice for her murdered teenage daughter has herself been killed.
Marisela Escobedo was shot dead by masked gunmen outside the state governor's office in Chihuahua in northern Mexico, prosecutors said.
She had been protesting against the release of the man accused of murdering her daughter in Ciudad Juarez in 2008.
Governor Cesar Duarte said he had no doubt the killing was an act of revenge by the alleged murderer.
He said he would seek to have the judges who released him removed from their posts.
Mrs Escobedo, 52, was shot in the head at close range by one of three masked men who approached her as she was protesting on Thursday evening. She died in hospital.
She had protested in Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez since April, when judges released the man suspected of killing her 17-year-old daughter Rubi, saying there was not enough evidence to convict him.
'Indignation'
Rubi's dismembered and burned body was found dumped in Ciudad Juarez in 2008.
The suspect, her boyfriend, joined the Zetas drug cartel after his release, Mrs Escobeda alleged in a newspaper interview last week.
Chihuahua state governor Cesar Duarte said the case filled him with "indignation".
"He confessed, he accepted guilt, and he revealed where the remains of Marisela's daughter's body could be found," the governor said.
"That's why nobody can understand the irresponsibility of these judges who gave freedom to someone who is such a danger to society."
The governor said he would ask the state congress to sack the judges concerned.
Ciudad Juarez, on the US border, is Mexico's most violent city, with more than 3,000 killings so far this year, most of them linked to drug-trafficking gangs.
The city is also notorious for the murder of hundreds of women over the past two decades.
Most of the victims were young and poor, and many were sexually assaulted before they were killed.
Few of the killers have ever been brought to justice
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
Joe Guy wrote:Hmmmm..... so Oldr & Big RR say....
Money + Power = Get Women
I want to read Guin's reaction...
God forbid anyone point out that MEN apparently choose women based on physical traits/appearance. Nope, it's all the dumb, greedy women's fault.
And there's no sexism in America???
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
You're absolutely right guin, at least for some (man) men who seek that attractiveness above all else; and at least some women choose men based on the size of their pocketbook and the life they might lead with them. So when a very attractive girl meets an unattractive but rich man, she might well consider being with him (at least if she is of the type that values the financial security above all else); likewise of the wealthy guy is looking for a beautiful woman, he might consider her. No greed at all so far as I can see--just people knowing what their priorities are (and most of the time they both get what they deserve).
Now why in the hell is this sexism?
Now why in the hell is this sexism?
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
It's sexism because 95% of the time the narrative is about the greedy woman choosing the wealthy man, not that its a mutual transaction where the man is equally responsible. See. e.g., the posts above.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
Well each commentator can speak for him or herself; I certainly did not state that the woman was greedy--and only insinuated my belief that she had her priorities screwed up--and I think my comment about senior partners and trophy wives speaks for itself (we've all seen it and those guys usually seem like the asses they are). But the genesis of this sub-discussion stemmed from comments about why some women seem to go after the rich guys (like Donald Trump stated/implied) who really have nothing else going for them, so the men really weren't discussed. If you want to start a thread about wealthy, self absorbed guys who were losers in high school now chasing the cheerleaders to make up for their inadequacies, I'd would be more than happy to contribute and agree. And I do agree that both parties are responsible and are getting what they want (and often wind up getting what they deserve.
And FWIW, I am sure there are attractive men who chase after rich women (and are courted by them) for pretty much the same reasons. There are all kinds of people in this brave new world.
And FWIW, I am sure there are attractive men who chase after rich women (and are courted by them) for pretty much the same reasons. There are all kinds of people in this brave new world.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
I tell my kids: Marry for money; you can find love anywhere, but money's hard to come by.
Do I need some sort of ironic smilie here?
Do I need some sort of ironic smilie here?
GAH!
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
I worked for a wise attorney back in the day who was fond of saying "if you marry for money, you earn every penny - the hardest way possible."
He did a lot of high dollar divorces and he also did a lot of estate planning and saw some very sad family dynamics over the years.
He did a lot of high dollar divorces and he also did a lot of estate planning and saw some very sad family dynamics over the years.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Grab Them By The PUSSY
That's the ONLY way I'd ever get married again... hard work or not. Remember, the secret of a good marriage is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.Sue U wrote:I tell my kids: Marry for money; you can find love anywhere, but money's hard to come by.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Grab them by the PUSSY
So Trump's lawyer wrote to the NY Times demanding an apology and a retraction of its story about two women's allegations of groping/assault. In response. the Times' assistant general counsel wrote:
I'd love to be defending this case for NYT. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's true my client called Donald Trump an asshole who assaults women. As exhibit A, we present Donald Trump, an asshole who brags about assaulting women. You'd think he'd be happy to have the Times confirm at least one thing he's said as actually true."
The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. ... Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
I'd love to be defending this case for NYT. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's true my client called Donald Trump an asshole who assaults women. As exhibit A, we present Donald Trump, an asshole who brags about assaulting women. You'd think he'd be happy to have the Times confirm at least one thing he's said as actually true."
GAH!